• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

We are all sinners-so says the Christian

Hypersonic

Hypersonic

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
212
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm always amazed when a person of the Christian faith, or any of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith use their humanity as an excuse for transgression. When pastors are busted for living in lavish homes while spreading the gospel to congregants, the excuse seems to be "God wants all of us to be happy." Now we have reality shows such as "Preachers of L.A" which is somewhat of an off shoot of "Housewives of Orange County" "Basketball Wives" etc. In America, it seems Christianity is becoming more and more commercialized and less sacred when it comes to the ancient Biblical text in which in many of the stories discuss about many impoverished yet enlightened prophets of God.

What I'm mostly critical about regarding the subject of "I sin because of the flesh" is that it blames what is innate in all humans and that, it is the human beings fault that he or she indulges in what comes natural to all human beings. The quality in which God the "Lord of the Universe" instills in all humans. From those that use this line, it seems to me that it lacks any personal responsibility, and although the individual claims their human desires are responsible, it seems that the person claiming to have done wrong due to the flesh is not exclaiming any personal responsibility for transgression. It seems that way in all of the Abrahamic text. In Islam all that is bad that befalls on you is your fault and all that is good that befalls on you is God's blessings. It seems that mankind which is endowed with many qualities is at fault for sin if they transgress utilizing the desires God endows them with and then blames it on those desires for those transgressions. So my criticism is not that the person transgress due to a lack of religious conscious, it is more so blaming their innate qualities as opposed to what they consciously have done.


This line in this movie is totally relevant to how I feel about this subject *excuse the profanity*

 
Last edited:
Hypersonic said:
"I sin because of the flesh"
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was taught as a kid. I have a theory that those who possess this philosophy are more obedient and civil. The problem is that obedience only works if there is someone to be obedient to. That means the pastor has to ignore the philosophy that he is teaching. This makes it appear sinister and hypocritical when in fact it's functional.

Now for the big picture.

When Christians learn this philosophy in church they will eventually learn to apply it within their church organization. Once they get really good at that, this same thought process is applied in the work place. Employers love somebody that kisses their a$$ all the time. "I am so sorry that I stole that paper clip, sir. I am such a dirt bag for that." Nobody wants to believe they are a dirt bag so they try harder never to steal a paper clip again and they most certainly aren't going to embezzle money from their boss. On the other side. They work for really low wages because they are worthless slime that don't deserve anything but if the boss gives them more money they are eternally grateful. It is his "blessings" his "provisions" because of his generosity not my good works. It couldn't possibly be because of my good works.

I wish I could explain my theory more eloquently. It's very complex. It makes perfect sense to me but it's really hard to explain it to someone else.

Conclusion: A popular belief that "I sin because of the flesh" is a strong foundation for a functional society.

vasuderatorrent
 
Interesting theory
 
Hypersonic said:
[... ]
Click to expand...

I think you're a sinner regardless of what christians say.

If you don't believe in a religion, then don't judge yourself according to such standards and said dogma. And even those who are believers of a certain dogma, judging yourself completely according to said dogma is stupid.
 
The doctrinal detour Christianity took when it went down the road of original sin was a fiasco for Christianity. The gospel is a positive message about becoming loving persons, not a negative attack on human nature.
 
Rainman05 said:
I think you're a sinner regardless of what christians say.

If you don't believe in a religion, then don't judge yourself according to such standards and said dogma. And even those who are believers of a certain dogma, judging yourself completely according to said dogma is stupid.
Click to expand...

Then what is sin if not a Christian, Jew, or a Muslim?
 
Hypersonic said:
I'm always amazed when a person of the Christian faith, or any of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith use their humanity as an excuse for transgression. When pastors are busted for living in lavish homes while spreading the gospel to congregants, the excuse seems to be "God wants all of us to be happy."
Click to expand...

I don't know if God wants us all to be "happy" - He wants us all to be joyful. Certainly He has nothing against people living in nice houses.

Now we have reality shows such as "Preachers of L.A" which is somewhat of an off shoot of "Housewives of Orange County" "Basketball Wives" etc. In America, it seems Christianity is becoming more and more commercialized and less sacred when it comes to the ancient Biblical text in which in many of the stories discuss about many impoverished yet enlightened prophets of God.
Click to expand...

I've never seen or heard of Preachers of L.A. - are you making the comparison strictly because of the fact that both are reality TV shows? Or do they actually picture the preachers living that way.

What I'm mostly critical about regarding the subject of "I sin because of the flesh" is that it blames what is innate in all humans and that, it is the human beings fault that he or she indulges in what comes natural to all human beings. The quality in which God the "Lord of the Universe" instills in all humans. From those that use this line, it seems to me that it lacks any personal responsibility, and although the individual claims their human desires are responsible, it seems that the person claiming to have done wrong due to the flesh is not exclaiming any personal responsibility for transgression.
Click to expand...

I have highlighted the mutually contradicting portions of your claims here. Suffice to say that one cannot both be at fault and not at fault for ones' decisions - and that "what comes natural to human beings" includes items such as rape, theft, cruelty, and genocide. Furthermore, Christianity does not state that our status as fallen humans excuses us from personal responsibility, or repentance. Quite, in fact, the opposite.

It seems that way in all of the Abrahamic text. In Islam all that is bad that befalls on you is your fault and all that is good that befalls on you is God's blessings. It seems that mankind which is endowed with many qualities is at fault for sin if they transgress utilizing the desires God endows them with and then blames it on those desires for those transgressions. So my criticism is not that the person transgress due to a lack of religious conscious, it is more so blaming their innate qualities as opposed to what they consciously have done.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have this correct. Christians claim that we are all sinners, and that we all screw up. And your problem with that is that... they are correct....
 
cpwill said:
I don't know if God wants us all to be "happy" - He wants us all to be joyful. Certainly He has nothing against people living in nice houses.



I've never seen or heard of Preachers of L.A. - are you making the comparison strictly because of the fact that both are reality TV shows? Or do they actually picture the preachers living that way.



I have highlighted the mutually contradicting portions of your claims here. Suffice to say that one cannot both be at fault and not at fault for ones' decisions - and that "what comes natural to human beings" includes items such as rape, theft, cruelty, and genocide. Furthermore, Christianity does not state that our status as fallen humans excuses us from personal responsibility, or repentance. Quite, in fact, the opposite.



So let me see if I have this correct. Christians claim that we are all sinners, and that we all screw up. And your problem with that is that... they are correct....
Click to expand...

To answer your preachers of L.A inquiry

Believers in bling: Behold, the prosperity 'Preachers of L.A.' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

To quote in the link:

"The Preachers of L.A." represents the distilled toxicity of Christianity combined with a money-obsessed generation of American preachers.

Even to sympathizers, the show seems to reaffirm all the negative stereotypes about greedy prosperity preachers more interested in bling than the BIble.

The show is an offshoot of others like it such as the following: Basketball Wives L.A. - Reality Tea

"I've never seen or heard of Preachers of L.A. - are you making the comparison strictly because of the fact that both are reality TV shows? Or do they actually picture the preachers living that way."

There is nothing wrong with living a comfortable living. But with many struggling congregants losing their homes, people having trouble paying their lights, I think having a show about preachers living in a lavishg lifestyle takes away the preachers' goal: To spread the message of Jesus. If I watch a show about a pastor living in the hills I may be more interested in the damn house than the paster him/herself. My next concern would be where the money is coming from and how is the pastor in comparison to the rest of the members of the church are living. One pastor living in the hills the others are living in South Central projects?

With respect to what you highlighted as a contradiction let me clarify because it was not a contradiction.

When someone says they blame their desires, such as a man who blames that his sexual desires caused him to commit fornication and infidelity (hypothetically speaking) although he is admitting his desires, he is not admitting that he made a conscious decision to pull his pants down, and insert his penis in another woman who is not his wife, vagina. The human sexual desire is not autonomous. The persohn who admits his sexual desires were overwhelming is admitting that they do not have self control which is a scapegoat to blaming their innate desires as opposed to just saying "I made a conscious decision and that decision was a mistake."
 
The concept of original sin is like going and jailing all the descendants of John Wilkes Booth for killing Lincoln.

But, reason and rationality are the enemies of religion.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is the Religion Forum. It is for the civil and respectful discussion of theistic issues. Generalized religion bashing will be infracted. This is also not the place for assertions that there is no God, that all religion is delusion, or similar maunderings... those are welcome in the Philosophy forum. Excessive/uncivil bashing of a specific religion may also be infracted if it falls outside of "civil theistic discussion". Be advised that due to the nature of the OP, this thread will be under scrutiny.
 
Rationalizing sin in that way just sounds like another means of not taking responsibility, like "nobody's perfect." It's like saying you can't help yourself, yet i don't think the early church founders lived in a palace either. There is the possibility of restraint. Preachers in LA could settle into a nice $2 million complex instead of a $3 million one. Less sinful and all.

There's also the annoying tendency to downplay one's own sins of the flesh while condemning others at every turn.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is exactly what I was taught as a kid. I have a theory that those who possess this philosophy are more obedient and civil. The problem is that obedience only works if there is someone to be obedient to. That means the pastor has to ignore the philosophy that he is teaching. This makes it appear sinister and hypocritical when in fact it's functional.

Now for the big picture.

When Christians learn this philosophy in church they will eventually learn to apply it within their church organization. Once they get really good at that, this same thought process is applied in the work place. Employers love somebody that kisses their a$$ all the time. "I am so sorry that I stole that paper clip, sir. I am such a dirt bag for that." Nobody wants to believe they are a dirt bag so they try harder never to steal a paper clip again and they most certainly aren't going to embezzle money from their boss. On the other side. They work for really low wages because they are worthless slime that don't deserve anything but if the boss gives them more money they are eternally grateful. It is his "blessings" his "provisions" because of his generosity not my good works. It couldn't possibly be because of my good works.

I wish I could explain my theory more eloquently. It's very complex. It makes perfect sense to me but it's really hard to explain it to someone else.

Conclusion: A popular belief that "I sin because of the flesh" is a strong foundation for a functional society.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...
There are many theories that Christianity took hold of Europe due to it's abuse through Serf-labor systems. Essentially, they were told to work for a "lord" that would let them work his land, for the deal that their week would be split into 3 days for the lord, 3 days for the serf, and 1 day for rest. That meshes very well with Christianity, where all people are sinners, they are only worthy enough to work for others, and they get their necessary rest on the Sabbath. By teaching them that they are wrong for wanting riches, they never question why their labors never enrich themselves. It was a nice gig for everyone, except the serfs.
 
douglas said:
There are many theories that Christianity took hold of Europe due to it's abuse through Serf-labor systems. Essentially, they were told to work for a "lord" that would let them work his land, for the deal that their week would be split into 3 days for the lord, 3 days for the serf, and 1 day for rest. That meshes very well with Christianity, where all people are sinners, they are only worthy enough to work for others, and they get their necessary rest on the Sabbath. By teaching them that they are wrong for wanting riches, they never question why their labors never enrich themselves. It was a nice gig for everyone, except the serfs.
Click to expand...

This is regrettably correct. Christianity -- as a series of doctrines -- was quickly usurped by the powerful and used to control the population. Even the notion of a king being appointed by God got into the rhetoric of feudal Europe.

None of this had anything to do with the message of the gospel, but that didn't matter, especially since most people couldn't read and and those that were, were discouraged from reading the bible without sacerdotal "guidance" in any case.
 
head of joaquin said:
This is regrettably correct. Christianity -- as a series of doctrines -- was quickly usurped by the powerful and used to control the population. Even the notion of a king being appointed by God got into the rhetoric of feudal Europe.

None of this had anything to do with the message of the gospel, but that didn't matter, especially since most people couldn't read and and those that were, were discouraged from reading the bible without sacerdotal "guidance" in any case.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I think you'll see that illiteracy and religiosity tend to go hand in hand, even today. It's not a slight on religious people, in that you can be both religious and literate, of course. But, the trend is there, all around the world. There are dozens of conclusions that can be drawn from this, but I personally link them both to poverty rates; it's really hard to prove the causal relationships for things like this, it's really a chicken and the egg scenario.

World_literacy_map_UNHD_2007_2008.png


Religion_in_the_world.PNG
 
head of joaquin said:
The doctrinal detour Christianity took when it went down the road of original sin was a fiasco for Christianity. The gospel is a positive message about becoming loving persons, not a negative attack on human nature.
Click to expand...

The Gospel DOES indeed carry a positive message, however, there is also a flip-side to the Gospel......it's called judgment. God promises to judge sin. I tend to believe Him when He makes a promise....but that's just me. :shrug:
 
A loving God does not punish sin. Sin is a word made by man.
 
It's much more positive when we look at our humanity as a something that gives us great potential, rather than something that limits us. Judaism and its descendants posited that we were fallen. We had once been great and now we were flawed. Instead, the reality is the opposite. We have risen up, through the evolutionary processes over billions of years. Our humanity is not the thing that holds us back, it is what allows us unimagined possibilities of greatness.

It is not humility to say that we are all sinners and prone to failure. It is simply self-defeating. It is rationalization, as Chromium said above. If we fail, it means we must strive that much harder not to. It doesn't mean that we shrug our shoulders and claim that we couldn't help ourselves.

Pretty much everything found in the Torah teaches us terrible lessons, especially things in Genesis.
 
douglas said:
There are many theories that Christianity took hold of Europe due to it's abuse through Serf-labor systems. Essentially, they were told to work for a "lord" that would let them work his land, for the deal that their week would be split into 3 days for the lord, 3 days for the serf, and 1 day for rest. That meshes very well with Christianity, where all people are sinners, they are only worthy enough to work for others, and they get their necessary rest on the Sabbath. By teaching them that they are wrong for wanting riches, they never question why their labors never enrich themselves. It was a nice gig for everyone, except the serfs.
Click to expand...

Can you name any books that have been written on this subject? I would be extremely interested.

vasuderatorrent
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Can you name any books that have been written on this subject? I would be extremely interested.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...
Most of what I know is more from the economic aspect of feudalism, so I don't think I know of any books that are specifically about this connection. I'm certain there are some, since it's not a very uncommonly held theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom Wikipedia notes that the amount of days per week that serfs forfeited to their lord differed from country to country, and ramped up as time went by. They show that Polish serfs went from working a couple days each year for their land in the 13th Century, vs 500 years later, they were working the 3 days per week for their lord. Middle Ages - Serfs Confirms that ratio as common in the Middle-ages. There was an economics lecture I saw on youtube that specifically talked about the Christian/Serfdom connection, but I'm having a hell of a time trying to find it again. Apparently, "Serfdom" is becoming a new thing on Christian blogs, as a pejorative towards Wal-mart and Mcdonalds and such, so Googling isn't yielding much except opinion pieces.
 
Last edited:
In regards to original sin here are the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

In the 13 articles of faith #2 states:
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
Articles of Faith | Mormon.org
Compare the countenances of the woman and child in the link to Al Pacino in the OP video. That is the difference between having Christ's countenance and the evil one's. The devil is called the accuser, and is the father of all lies. The accusations are what you would expect, lies, deflection of guilt from himself. If one understand existence and the Plan of Salvation clearly the entire case in the video is shown to be not true.

Here are the LDS teachings in regards to original sin and baptisms of infants. If you will read the scriptural links provided in the link below you will see how much the Lord condemns the practice.
Infant Baptism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also has no paid clergy. Go LDS!

23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. -Nephi 22:23


29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.
31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.
 
Hypersonic said:
I'm always amazed when a person of the Christian faith, or any of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith use their humanity as an excuse for transgression. When pastors are busted for living in lavish homes while spreading the gospel to congregants, the excuse seems to be "God wants all of us to be happy." Now we have reality shows such as "Preachers of L.A" which is somewhat of an off shoot of "Housewives of Orange County" "Basketball Wives" etc. In America, it seems Christianity is becoming more and more commercialized and less sacred when it comes to the ancient Biblical text in which in many of the stories discuss about many impoverished yet enlightened prophets of God.

What I'm mostly critical about regarding the subject of "I sin because of the flesh" is that it blames what is innate in all humans and that, it is the human beings fault that he or she indulges in what comes natural to all human beings. The quality in which God the "Lord of the Universe" instills in all humans. From those that use this line, it seems to me that it lacks any personal responsibility, and although the individual claims their human desires are responsible, it seems that the person claiming to have done wrong due to the flesh is not exclaiming any personal responsibility for transgression. It seems that way in all of the Abrahamic text. In Islam all that is bad that befalls on you is your fault and all that is good that befalls on you is God's blessings. It seems that mankind which is endowed with many qualities is at fault for sin if they transgress utilizing the desires God endows them with and then blames it on those desires for those transgressions. So my criticism is not that the person transgress due to a lack of religious conscious, it is more so blaming their innate qualities as opposed to what they consciously have done.


This line in this movie is totally relevant to how I feel about this subject *excuse the profanity*

Click to expand...


One of my favorite scenes from one of my fave films. I also love the part when what he and his daughter/lover really look like is revealed. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom